Foreign policy is about how leaders and states make decisions based on their interests and how they behave toward other actors in the international arena. Other actors include intergovernmental organizations non-governmental organizations (NGOs), and multinational corporations. Many foreign policy theories look at individuals and domestic politics, not only at the international system. Other groups and institutions within countries also make decisions, and these decisions influence the country’s relations with other international actors. Foreign policy analysts emphasize that decisions made within countries by different actors have significant consequences.
States may have many interests, but how do those interests become actual foreign policy decisions? In this article, "state interests" means the goals a state wants to protect or achieve, the same as the national interest. I argue that interests set the direction, but the people who interpret them shape the final decision. This article is based on Chapter 4 of International Relations by Pevehouse and Goldstein, explained in my own words.
Read also: China’s Rise and the Failure of American Strategic Thinking
State Interests and Foreign Policy Goals
 |
| Figure 1: Simplified Model of Foreign Policy Decision Making |
|
Some states prefer to avoid risks and may therefore accept the objectives of another state rather than challenging them. Decision-makers consider these different possibilities before taking action. Their purpose is to choose an outcome that protects their interests and gives them the best possible chance of achieving their goals.
How Interests Become Foreign Policy Decisions
Having an interest is only the beginning of the foreign policy process. After a state identifies what it wants to achieve, its decision-makers have to think about how those goals can be reached. They cannot simply choose an action without considering what may happen afterward. They have to look at the situation, understand the problem, and consider the different choices available to them. The first step is to make the goals clear and decide which goals are more important. A state may have several interests at the same time, but they may not all be equally important. Decision-makers therefore have to give priority to some goals over others. Once the main goals are clear, they can look at different alternatives that may help them achieve those goals.
Each alternative can produce a different result. For this reason, decision-makers examine the possible consequences of each choice before taking action. They consider what they may gain from an option, what it may cost, and what risks may come with it. They also have to consider uncertainty because the outcome of a foreign policy decision cannot always be known in advance. An action that appears useful may not produce the expected result if another state reacts differently. The relationship between states also makes this process more difficult. In that case, the original decision may produce a different outcome from the one that was expected. This means that foreign policy choices depend not only on what a state wants to achieve but also on how other actors may respond.
After comparing the available choices and their possible consequences, decision-makers select the option that they believe provides the best way to achieve the state's goals. The selected option is then put into action. Its effects can then be observed, and this information can help decision-makers understand whether the policy was successful or whether changes are needed. Foreign policy decision-making can therefore be understood as a continuing process in which goals lead to choices, choices lead to actions, and the results of those actions can influence future decisions.
Why Foreign Policy Decisions Can Differ
A state may have clear interests and goals, but this does not always mean that its final foreign policy decision will be completely rational. The reason is simple: states do not make decisions by themselves. People make decisions on behalf of the state, and they have their own knowledge, beliefs, experiences, emotions, and ways of understanding information. Different decision-makers may understand the same situation differently. Take information as an example. Before making a foreign policy decision, leaders receive information from diplomats, intelligence agencies, military officials, and other sources. However, receiving information does not mean that everyone will understand it in the same way. A decision-maker may give more importance to information that supports what they already believe and pay less attention to information that challenges their expectations. Scholars call this confirmation bias. The problem is not always a lack of information. Sometimes, it is how that information is understood.
1. Perception and Information
History provides several examples of this problem. Before the attacks of September 11, 2001, American intelligence agencies had information about possible terrorist threats, but it was not brought together and understood effectively enough to prevent the attack. This shows that having information is only one part of foreign policy decision-making. The more important question is how decision-makers understand and use it.
Let’s take another example from the decision-making process before the 2003 Iraq War. Intelligence assessments about Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction contained serious problems. Later investigations by the U.S. Senate found that many important intelligence judgments were either overstated or unsupported by the available evidence. The investigation also found that analysts had developed a strong assumption that Iraq had an active weapons program, which influenced how they interpreted uncertain information. Their existing expectations affected how they understood new information. This example shows how perceptions can influence decisions even when large amounts of information are available.
2. Beliefs and Past Experience
Further, individual beliefs and previous experiences can influence foreign policy. A leader does not enter a crisis with a completely empty mind. They already have ideas about allies, rivals, threats, and the international system. These ideas can affect how they see a new situation. If a leader already considers another state highly dangerous, even a small military movement may be seen as a serious threat. Another leader with a different experience may see the same movement as a normal action. The information may be the same, but the interpretation can differ.
Historical experience can also influence this process. Leaders sometimes compare a new international crisis with something that happened in the past. For example, American leaders have repeatedly referred to the lessons of the 1930s and the failure to stop Hitler early when thinking about later international conflicts. Such comparisons can help leaders understand unfamiliar situations, but they can also create problems when the two situations are not actually similar. If a decision-maker sees every new rival through the experience of an old enemy, they may respond to the present according to the past rather than the current facts.
Emotions are another important part of this process. Foreign policy decisions are not always based on a simple calculation of costs and benefits. Fear, anger, confidence, frustration, or personal dislike can affect how a leader views another country or a particular situation. Imagine a leader who believes that showing weakness will encourage an opponent to take further action. Even when compromise could reduce the risk of conflict, the leader may reject it out of fear that it will damage their country’s position. In this case, the decision is connected not only to national interest but also to how the leader emotionally understands the situation.
3. Time and Uncertainty
There is also a practical limitation. During many international crises, leaders do not have unlimited time to collect information, examine every alternative, and calculate every possible consequence. They may have to make a decision while the information is incomplete and the actions of other states remain uncertain. This makes the perfectly rational model difficult to follow in the real world. A decision-maker may therefore choose what seems to be the best option based on the information available at that moment. This is known as bounded rationality: leaders look for a good enough choice, not a perfect one, because time and information are limited.
State interests tell us what a country wants, but not always what it will do. Between the goal and the decision stand real people, with limited information, strong beliefs, memories of past crises and emotions like fear. That is why two states facing the same pressure can act differently. It also explains why the same government may change its policy when its leaders change. To understand foreign policy, we have to study both the interests of the state and the people who interpret them.
References
International Relations, 12th Edition, Global Edition - Jon C. W. Pevehouse and Joshua S. Goldstein, Chapter 4: “Foreign Policy,” pp. 146–169.